IMPORTANT POINT
In motor accident claims, the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probability, and delays in FIR registration do not negate the claimants' entitlement to compensation.

JUDGMENT :

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J.

This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 15.10.2022 passed in MVOP.No.83 of 2021 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

2. For convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 10.03.2021, the deceased (Shaik Mansoor) was proceeding on his Motorcycle bearing No.AP-25-K-0521 from Kamareddy towards Guru Raghavendra Colony side, and when he reached the TATA ACE showroom situated on the National Highway, one new TATA ACE came in the opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result of which, he fell and sustained grievous injuries, fracture injuries to the head and other parts of the body. He was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, where he succumbed to injuries on 12.03.2021 while undergoing treatment.

The Police Devanpally registered a case in Cr.No.92 of 2021 against the driver of the offending vehicle under Section 304-A IPC. Hence, the petitioners filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.75,00,000/-.

4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex-parte.

5. Respondent No.2/Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. filed a counter denying the manner in which the accident took place and also denied the deceased’s age, avocation and income. It is also contended that the accident did not occur with the alleged TATA ACE Gold vehicle, and the accident took place due to gross negligence of the deceased, who was riding the motorcycle bearing No.AP-25-K-0521 without a valid driving license, and further, the said motorcycle was not in a worthy condition to ply on the roads. Further, the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. To prove the petitioners’ case, PWs.1 to 3 were examined, and Exs.A1 to A10 and Ex.C1 were marked. RW.1 was examined for the respondent Insurance Company, and Ex.B1-Copy of the Insurance Policy was marked.

7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the claim petition by granting compensation of Rs.61,91,962/- with interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization to be paid by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally to the petitioners. Challenging the same, the present M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the respondent Insurance Company.

8. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company, and Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the petitioners/claimants, and perused the record.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased himself. Since he was not wearing protecting head gear while falling down on the road, he sustained a head injury and died subsequently.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company further contended that the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the vehicle of the 1st respondent was involved in the accident. However, the respondent Insurance Company proved that the FIR was lodged with a delay of three days, while planting the said vehicle in collusion with the 1st respondent. Further, the non-filing of the medical record of the deceased pertaining to the alleged day of the accident raises several inferences on the narration of the accident.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company further contended that the Tribunal erred by accepting the deceased’s salary certificate, thereby granted excessive compensation by considering the deceased’s salary as Rs.53,772/-. Further, the Tribunal grossly erred by taking into account the deceased’s net salary without deducting any income-tax that was statutorily